Next week, right-wing commentator S.E. Cupp's new book, Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity (Threshold Editions - April 2010), will be released complete with a foreword by Fox News host Mike Huckabee.

The Washington Post asked the National Center for Science Education's Joshua Rosenau "to weigh in on Cupp's scholarship" on the issue of evolution. Given Cupp's track record of misinformation on a variety of issues, it isn't surprising that Rosenau had plenty to take issue with on the subject. The highlights:

S.E. Cupp's handling of science and religion misrepresents the nature of evolution, obscures the science of biology, and dismisses the deeply-held religious views of most Christians outside of the fundamentalist subculture. This is the sort of misrepresentation which leads her to concoct an anti-Christian conspiracy on the part of reporters, and - bizarrely - to say that Darwin is "quite literally the Anti Christ" for liberals.

[...]

Cupp presents evolution -- and science more generally -- as the enemy of religion. Reporters' "propping up of science," she writes, is an "attack on Christianity." If anything, it is Cupp's approach which insults Christians. Research detailed in Elaine Ecklund's forthcoming "Science vs. Religion," shows that many scientists are religious themselves and do not generally regard science and religion as enemies.

[...]

On top of misrepresenting the nature of science and the nature of religion, Cupp's coverage does violence not just to the science of evolution, but to the public's expectations of science journalists and science teachers. She misreports recent history and legal proceedings. She twists math itself to claim that 44 percent is "not a minority."

She concludes by complaining that "the liberal media is not interested in acknowledging our nation as a deeply religious one," and repeats her claim that evolution is a weapon used to attack Christians.

[...]

Whether our nation is or isn't "deeply religious" does not change what science is or how it works, and does not change the century and a half of meticulous research which has convinced scientists that evolution is essential to biology and biology education.

Amid reports that several Democrats in Congress have been the targets of death threats, racial and anti-gay epithets, and have had their offices vandalized for their votes on health care reform, several Fox News personalities have been quick to first condemn the threats but then immediately make excuses for the threats. Others have appeared to dismiss the seriousness of the threats.

This 3 percent approval number for Pelosi, however, doesn't in fact exist. From the poll:

3. Do you approve or disapprove of the job Nancy Pelosi is doing as speaker of the House?

Approve Disapprove (DK)

16-17 Mar 10 31% 57 13

Democrats 56% 28 16

Republicans 9% 83 8

Independents 25% 65 10

Then you get to question 9 of the poll and you start to see the -- how shall I say? -- asinine reasoning by which the 3 percent number became Pelosi's approval number. First, the poll question:

9. Which one of following people do you have the most respect for -- President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts? (ROTATE)

President Speaker Chief Justice

Obama Pelosi Roberts (All) (None) (Don't know)

16-17 Mar 10 46% 3 37 2 9 3

Democrats 76% 4 12 3 4 2

Republicans 14% 2 67 1 12 4

Independents 48% 2 35 1 11 3

See, only 3 percent of people in this poll had the "most respect for" Pelosi, not approved of the job she is doing as speaker. Either I'm dumb or my powers of comprehension have been impaired by March Madness mania and now both respect and approval mean the same thing.

Bill O'Reilly, who is ... um, veryfond of attackingPelosi, also couldn't help himself tonight, saying on his show: "One poll said -- you know what Nancy Pelosi's approval rating is? Three percent." But, unlike Cupp, O'Reilly caught himself, quickly putting his hand up and adding, "It's not a straight approval rating question -- it's who do you trust? And they listed Obama, and somebody else, and then Pelosi at 3 percent."

Final thought: Guess who conducted the poll? Two points if you picked Fox News.

Conservative media figures have recently attacked President Obama and the Department of Justice for employing lawyers who previously represented terror suspects or supported their legal arguments in their private practices. However, Bush administration lawyers also reportedly represented Guantánamo Bay detainees before working for the Justice Department.

Criticizing President Obama's proposed job summit, right-wing columnist S.E. Cupp stated that "When Alaska was pelted by the economy, Sarah Palin put the plane up on eBay," suggesting that that is the sort of "practical answer" the United States should implement.

The New York Times was forced to issue two corrections after relying on Capitol Hill anonymous sourcing for its flawed report on emails from former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Clinton debacle is the latest example of why the media should be careful when relying on leaks from partisan congressional sources -- this is far from the first time journalists who did have been burned.

Several Fox News figures are attempting to shift partial blame onto Samuel DuBose for his own death at the hands of a Cincinnati police officer during a traffic stop, arguing DuBose should have cooperated with the officer's instructions if he wanted to avoid "danger."

Iowa radio host Steve Deace is frequently interviewed as a political analyst by mainstream media outlets like NPR, MSNBC, and The Hill when they need an insider's perspective on the GOP primary and Iowa political landscape. However, these outlets may not all be aware that Deace gained his insider status in conservative circles by broadcasting full-throated endorsements of extreme right-wing positions on his radio show and writing online columns filled with intolerant views that he never reveals during main stream media appearances.